Jump to content

Talk:Cyclone Phet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleCyclone Phet has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic starCyclone Phet is part of the Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 21, 2016Good article nomineeListed
May 15, 2017Good topic candidatePromoted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on June 7, 2010.
Current status: Good article

Indian Deaths

[edit]

I don't believe India was affected by Cyclone (particularly, deaths) except there were some preparations, when it was expected to hit Gujrat. I think there was a separate system of lightening storm around same time in the Indian subcontinent. There were some deaths in Lahore (Pakistan) as well from the lightening, but not related to Phet. --Remukhan (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After double checking With User:Cyclonebiskit i am fairly sure they are not related to Phet though Phet is probably gonna affect India in some way. [1].Jason Rees (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am checking Pakistan deaths now too. I think these are not related to Cyclone Phet either, but a thunderstorm related, which is hitting Pakistan and India at the same time. I heard cyclone related deaths from Pakistan are only 20 so far. Will find the source and update it too. --Remukhan (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. All thunderstorm related deaths and impact removed. --Remukhan (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab deaths

[edit]

Are the deaths in Punjab related to the this cyclone ? We only have this source Storm kills 37 in Punjab, Lahore worst-affected, it says The deaths occurred as the country’s southern coastal belt was preparing for cyclone Phet to make landfall after hitting the coast of Oman on Friday. I think we have a storm in Punjab and a cyclone in Arabian sea. --yousaf465 03:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources also call it a thunderstorm, the hindu and DPA (I don't know whether this is a RS or not). --yousaf465 04:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
37 deaths in Punjab are not from the cyclonic system phet. --Remukhan (talk) 06:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should we remove those deaths form this article ? --yousaf465 07:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Thanks yousaf465 --Remukhan (talk) 09:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it depends. If the thunderstorms were caused by the cyclone or associated with the convection in the storm, then the thunderstorm deaths are related to the cyclone and should be included in an indirect death toll. However if the storms were entirely seperate, then the death toll from those should be excluded. ~AH1(TCU) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the thunderstorms in Punjab are connected to Phet as the imd says Himachal Pradesh is gonna be affected by Phet http://www.webcitation.org/5qJTySgct.Jason Rees (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)+[reply]
I have re-added the death toll from Punjab as indirect. Upon checking the IR and water vapor loops for the past two days, the storms over Punjab appear to be associated with the outflow of the low pressure system of Phet. ~AH1(TCU) 20:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The IMD advisery is for June 7, when the pressure was well-past Sindh into the lands of Punjab and Rajastan. While, the thunderstorm deaths occured on June 4th and 5th, when the cyclone was hitting Oman across Arabian sea. I live in Karachi (Sindh), which comes before the storm's path to Rajastan/Punjab, and we had sunny/partly cloudy with no sign of rain or lightening on June 4. So, I think the thunderstorm was off the cyclonic system. --Remukhan (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about the deaths in Punjab here not the thunderstorms :P Jason Rees (talk) 13:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes. Me too. Let me explain. Here are the news source of Punjab deaths; the hindu and khaleej times. Both published on June 5. By this date, deaths have already occurred from a "heavy thunderstorm" (no mention of deaths resulting from Phet). And if you read both news closely, the same news say that coastal belt of Pakistan (Sindh and Balochistan) are still doing preparations for "Phet". On June 5, Oman was getting heavy rains and Balochistan barely started receiving it. On June 6, Karachi (located at the edge of Sindh) got showers (you can verify it from the article Cyclone Phet). Punjab and Rajastan did not receive showers until June 7, which is when last IMD advisery you posted http://www.webcitation.org/5qJTySgct comes in. So, the deaths of June4/5 could not have occurred from this cyclone. I live in Karachi and it was still partial sunny here on June 5. Punjab couldn't have been affected by the cyclone by 5th. --Remukhan (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Map of Pakistan for reference.
Purple = Arabian sea (Across is Oman)
1 = Balochistan
4 = Sindh
3 = Punjab —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remukhan (talk • contribs) 16:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the explination.Jason Rees (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have removed the thunderstorm deaths now. --Remukhan (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some material I came around researching for DE:WP and DE:WN

[edit]

I don't know how long these links are available but if used they certainly should be webcited. If I am using them on my German wikinews article (not sure at the moment) I will doing that and provide the archive links here as well. Keep up the good work, guys. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Maybe also this link is helpful. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TRMM info here [2]Jason Rees (talk) 12:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the map and put it into the article, however the place isn't ideal. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good add Matthiasb. Useful info. Thanks --Remukhan (talk) 17:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winds/landfall

[edit]

Although it's pressure doesn't correspond, should it be mentioned that Phet was only the second category four storm (Had the second-highest winds of any storm) in the Arrabian Sea, after Gonu? Or should it be mentioned that it was only the second storm on record to hit the Arrabian Peninsula with hurricane-force winds, again after Gonu? Rye998 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except officially it didnt have the second-highest winds of any storm in the Arabian sea. Using IMD records i found ARB 02 1998 had peak wind speed of 90kts and im sure there are others.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant by one-minute winds, but if the IMD scale must be followed, then no, it wasn't. However, one thing I do know is it was only the second NIO cyclone to hit the Arrabian peninsula as a "hurricane"; Gonu was the only other one. I'm pretty sure that should be mentioned, and this storm was slightly stronger than Gonu, too(105 mph, Gonu was at 90 mph). Rye998 (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cyclone Phet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird

[edit]

The funny thing is that the storm looks so intense but has a high pressure of 970 millibars? Can it be stronger was it just rapid strengthening. LlayReactorUltra (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pressure 970/964 is taken from the IMD's BT and was probably lower, but we have to respect the IMD's pressure here.Jason Rees (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess your right LlayReactorUltra (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jw133102: We always use the pressure that the official warning centre gives us, rather than the JTWC's pressure since the JTWC are unofficial. Generally speaking there's only a minor difference of a couple of hPa, but in the case of both Phet and Phalin, there is a significant difference between the India Meteorological Department and the JTWC's pressure estimates. Personally I feel that we still should use the IMD Pressure which i take from their BT database or their annual report.Jason Rees (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. Josiah W. 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw133102 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps in times when there are discrepancies among warning centers, we first list the official and have a dash to whatever is the most extreme value by a reliable source. If a reputable source reported a lower pressure, higher winds, or any other extreme value, we should include both to remain neutral as an encyclopedia. Simply going by "official" isn't enough, knowing that facts can change, just as opinions can change. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Cyclone Phet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Phet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) 06:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Will do. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Impact" to "Impact and aftermath" since you're also talking about aftermath.
  • "According to Oman's National Committee for Civil Defence, Phet killed 16 people in the country,[19] although the IMD reported the death toll at 24.[1]" why include the 16 if you're not using in the table/lead? YE Pacific Hurricane 06:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yellow Evan: Hope it's better now. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 04:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Phet&oldid=1257852181"